Campaigners against the Norwich Northern Distributor Road have said they could mount a High Court challenge over the consultation on the scheme - after claiming their responses to the consultation were ‘lost’ by the county council and not submitted to the planning inspectorate.

While Norfolk County Council insists it is “confident” all consultation responses were properly logged and included in the consultation report, The Green Party, campaign group Stop Norwich Urbanisation (SNUB) and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) all made submissions to the county council over the road and say they have automated responses to prove it.

But they say their submissions are not part of the county’s consultation files which have been submitted to the planning inspectorate - which will hold a public inquiry over whether to grant permission for the £148.5m road this summer.

Green county councillor Andrew Boswell, who has been told by the county council it has no record of the submission he made on behalf of the Green Party, has called on the planning inspectorate not to accept the application for planning consent, saying it shows the consultation was tainted.

In a letter sent to the inspectorate by Mr Boswell and his group leader Richard Bearman, they wrote: “Norwich Green Party respectfully asks you to consider your approach to accepting, or not, the application.

“If it is accepted following the flawed consultation, and flawed consultation results document, then Norwich Green Party reserves its right to apply to the High Court for an order that will give effect to reopening the consultation so that it may be carried out fairly to all parties.”

Mr Boswell has an automated response to his submission dated September 20 last year and an email from the county council on February 1 this year stating: “We have thoroughly investigated this matter and cannot find any record or copy of your email or attachment. Therefore we were unable to include this response in the consultation report.”

Stephen Heard, chairman of the campaign group SNUB, has also written to the planning inspectorate and Norfolk County Council’s interim managing director, saying his submission has also gone missing.

A comment submitted by CPRE Norfolk is also missing from the county’s consultation files.

Ian Shepherd of CPRE Norfolk, said: “CPRE Norfolk have felt for some time that the county council were not listening to those who had objections to the NDR - nor to the massive development planned around it.

“The responses made by those who have taken the time to ‘give their view’ should be required reading for our local politicians.”

And the Norfolk and Norwich Transport Action Group have taken issue with the county council’s claim that the majority of people support the road, which would stretch from the A47 at Postwick to the A1067 Fakenham Road.

The group says their own analysis of the 1,492 representations, overseen by Prof John Greenaway, from the University of East Anglia,

That showed 635 being clearly opposed to the proposed road scheme in principle, together with a further 250 who were opposed to or else had serious reservations about the adopted scheme.

There were 224 expressions of support.

Denise Carlo of NNTAG said: “These results show a clear majority against the submitted NDR scheme. Reading through the full set of responses, it is clear that many people are concerned about the environmental impacts, increases in traffic and various lanes closures as well as the cost.

“It is clear from the consultation that Norfolk County Council doesn’t have a mandate for the NDR. The council should halt work on the £148m scheme which it has agreed to underwrite to the tune of over £60m before wasting any more of the public’s money.”

But a spokesman for Norfolk County Council said: “We are confident that all consultation responses we have received have been properly logged and included in the consultation report

“Altogether over 1,400 responses have been received, showing that the consultation was very effective and that there is a high level of awareness of the proposals for Norwich Northern Distributor Road.

“The county council is committed to making this as inclusive and transparent a process as possible, which is why the full application documents have been available on our website at the earliest opportunity - much earlier than is usually the case.

“For those whose submissions, for whatever reason, have not been received, the independent examination of the proposals through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project development approval process provides ample opportunity for all points of view to be presented and considered.

“The county council would be keen to have sight of any such submissions to have the opportunity to respond and address any concerns raised.”

The Planning Inspectorate yesterday announced that the application for the proposed road had been accepted by communities secretary Eric Pickles for examination.

The council will now need to invite people who are interested in the proposal to register with the planning inspectorate as an interested party by making a relevant representation.

• What do you think of the NDR and the consultation process? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

Stop all this vexatious rhetoric and get it built. Far too much attention is given to the vocal minority, what about the silent majority of people who do want this road? Wish it was a ring road though! Progress is inevitable for the human race.

The NDR really does need to be built, as much as the protestors moan about it. Norwich is congested as it is, in the future this is going to get worse with New housing developments. There are always going to be opposers who will try to stop the plans but in the end it will improve the majority of people's journeys by reducing congestion around Norwich and allowing people in the North of Norfolk to the South easier and prevent rat running around Rackheath. Hopefully this news won't slow the process of building too much!

If I want to travel to Suffolk, do I drive to the north of Norwich, get alternative transport accross the city then drive to Suffolk from south of Norwich? Slight floor in the public transport argument me knows.

Flawed consultation (fact), flawed traffic flow figures (fact), non-transparency and lack of impartiality by NCC (fact). Canary Boy and Andy spot on. Its despicable what our County Council are up to, let the people of Norfolk really decide in an open democratic way and stop making decisions for us please.

Wouldn't it be terrible if public opinion or common sense were allowed to get in the way of Norfolk County Council's pet projects? Yesterday the Incinerator, today the NDR. At least tomorrow will bring local elections, when we can support councillors who oppose these costly, destructive schemes.

This article says more about the people making decisions at County Hall than the actual NDR. We appear to have a council that thinks it can run roughshod over it's electorate and spend rate-payers money on any old whim. From past experience, it is obvious that if the people are not supporting their plans they will go to any lengths to get their own way but 'misplacing' objection papers and this is to common to be anything but deliberate. Unless those Councillors who are genuine make a stand for democracy, then nothing will change in the near future. What a shame our beautiful county is being tarnished by a minority.

How will this impact on the proposed application for 1400 homes to be built opposite the White House Farm development on Salhouse Road? Or put another way. How will this new development with its ' Orbital' road impact on the NDR? “I name this town..WOODSIDE HEATHEND”. These are in addition to the planning applications already submitted and approved
So we now have 1400 more homes, that's about 2800 more cars making about 5000 more journeys into and out of the City . 1 new school, accommodating all ages, but up to now no proposal for a shop, a cafe or pub, a doctors surgery, a chemist, a place of worship, a florist, a fish and chip shop, a hairdressers. Just people and boxes. The NDR isn't all that's needed. Salhouse Road will require duelling from Green Lane Rackheath through Mousehole to the bottom of Ketts Hill. So lets have an investigation urgently - for and against - and Archant you are just the people to do it!

If thousands of homes are built - I agree with the question of who will live in them? Anyone who is homeless now will also be jobless - therefore unlikely to afford their own transport. How would they afford to live in the proposed homes if they cannot travel to work? More workplaces near the city centre - or more public transport - is the answer.

Lynda, nothing mysterious about that, its down to the landownership surrounding the bypass. You see some in this county can do as they like and others duff their caps, forever. The NDR is piecemeal, not well planned for the infrastructure demand we have in Norfolk. Where is anopther hoispital? what space is left for track transport in future? why do we still develop Norwich into a doughnut, an outdated and flawed concept of City planning? Anyone?

Whoops, refreshed the page and it put my first comment on again, apologies.
Question put to NCC Cabinet meeting on 27 January 2014
... why is the Cabinet even thinking of doing the NDR, when the majority of people do not want this three quarter "road to nowhere"..?
Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste.
"I do not think we can have any reason to assume that a majority of people do not support the NDR. In fact, all available evidence points to the majority of people being in favour of the NDR ..."
Not according to what we are reading about the True responses Mr Harrison ! Transparency please!

Read receipt from email servers are not legally enforceable proof that the named person actually saw the email. Living to the north of Norwich I am in favour of the road and I want it built immediately.

I cannot understand what NigelS is saying, the article states quite clearly the various groups did get a read receipt from NCC for their submissions. I also sent an email submission which is not recorded in the applicable section of NCC's consultation report, despite also having a read receipt from them. It is highly suspicious that the three major objector groups in the article, representing the views of thousands of Norfolk people, should have their representations go missing (presumably at different times), yet all have read receipts from the council. I have experienced a definite lack of transparency myself and a certain degree of covering things up and avoidance tactics from NCC when dealing with them over my own worries with the proposed road and its impact on our community and our lovely county.

Two comments. Firstly, this road received a fair amount of public support on the basis that it was a full west - east link. This support would have been minimal for the current proposal. Secondly, the traffic predictions for the roads coming off the NDR into Norwich are predicted to have no significant increase in traffic compared to now with the exception of the Plumstead Road according to NCC. Check it yourself to see. With 10,000 houses plus commercial properties, there must be plans for considerable restrictions on cars entering Norwich or the plan is flawed. Or is it both?

It is interesting that not one of the supporters on this site have explained why they think an NDR is needed when over 70% of responders to the consultation stated that it was not needed.
Could we have a reasoned discussion not unsubstantiated assertions.

The figures quoted in the report, 410 against the NDR and 171 for the NDR, show over 70% do not support the NDR.
However, analysis of the results of the consultation revealed numerous errors, omissions and inappropriate analysis procedures. A number of groups have raised concerns about traffic and other analyses in the NDR application. Disturbingly, it is known that detailed responses objecting to the NDR from CPRE, SNUB and Green Party, who represent thousands of local people, were not, apparently, received by NCC and were not included in the report on the consultation, although acknowledgement of their receipt was received.
How many more responses have gone missing? This raises serious concerns about the NDR application and, indeed, other development matters supported by NCC.
Revised figures for the the consultation indicates nearly 80% of respondents are opposed to the proposed NDR.
There is something rotten in the state of County Hall.

Clearly NigelS has not read the full report as SNUB and others did receive email receipts and we all submitted at various times well within the deadline. SNUB's submission was 21 pages so difficult to miss. This is of course not the first time this has happened as the original responses to the linked Joint Core Strategy also mysteriously disappeared. The truth is that NCC seem hell bent on spending money on roads to nowhere, airfields that are not in use and outdated incinerators all against the wishes of the community they are meant to be serving. In the menatime they are trying to cut £180m from front line services to the vulnerable. The economics of the madhouse which should surely be challenged by local MP's and the all party Public Accounts Committee.

This is a problem constantly brought up during the incinerator inquiry. Mr Cameron was constantly asked to provide missing documents during Mrs Hills opening housekeeping session. One lady very publicly exposed the removal from the portal of evidence. Another man told how he had submitted one official document on numerous occasions but NCC had not included it. The government cannot keep allowing this authority to abuse its powers and democratic process!

This issue is bigger than whether the NDR or incinerator go ahead or fail! The point is that our local authority are totally unfit for purpose. They cannot be trusted to deal with any planning application in an open, honest democratic way. Missing documents, evidence, pre determimed decisions, fixed committees are all it seems common place. Regardless if you are for or against the NDR, incinerator, or redevelopment of RAF Coltishall you should be concerned because the next fixed planning application could effect you.

Whether you are for or against the NDR,if these accusations are true then surely there has to be a High Court appeal.If SNUB and CPRE are truthful with their information then they have no other course of action.Stop pussy footing around and put your money where your mouth is.

The NDR, also known as the Northern Developer's Road, would service thousands of new houses the need for which has never been clearly explained by NCC. These houses would all be built on greenfield sites putting great swathes of countryside under concrete with the loss of productive agricultural land.
Many people recognise that more affordable homes are needed but it is likely that most of the houses, at least around 70%, will be unaffordable. Why not just build affordable houses where they are needed?
Some people thought that the NDR would reduce rat-running but the traffic generated by these mainly unaffordable houses will result in tens of thousands of new traffic movements a day on all radial routes to Norwich. It is also clear that many villages that hoped traffic through their villages would be reduced by an NDR now find that new developments planned for their village will result in more traffic in their village.
Why would anyone support an NDR?

It is about time these people were made to shut up. This road needs to be built and built quickly. If they are so precious about their opinions reaching NCC then they should have obtained confirmation of receipt because as we all know proof of sending is not the same. It is the senders responsibility not the recipient.

So out of 895000 residents of Norfolk only 1492 could be bothered to respond.
Hardly an uprising is it?
In most polls the antis are more likely to respond and 410 antis cannot be said to speak for the majority.

I cannot understand what NigelS is saying, the article states quite clearly the various groups did get a read receipt from NCC for their submissions. I also sent an email submission which is not recorded in the applicable section of NCC's consultation report, despite also having a read receipt from them. It is highly suspicious that the three major objector groups in the article, representing the views of thousands of Norfolk people, should have their representations go missing (presumably at different times), yet all have read receipts from the council. I have experienced a definite lack of transparency myself and a certain degree of covering things up and avoidance tactics from NCC when dealing with them over my own worries with the proposed road and its impact on our community and our lovely county.

The original consultation booklet, sent to householders, did not give people their democratic right to refuse the road. No wonder hardly anyone returned it in favour - the majority of people don't want their lovely county ruined! Tourist and farming jobs will be lost - apart from the environmental aspect. Who, going from one side of Norwich would bother to drive several miles out of their way, round various congested roads and roundabouts, when they could fill our city roads even more in a straightforward route? The proposed NDR would NOT be like the Southern Bypass which has mysteriously escaped having loads of buildings built around it! The NDR is more likely to be like our congested ringlink roads which, in the 1960s, were supposed to be the answer to traffic problems!
Improved public transport is the only answer.

It’s disgraceful but isn’t new, NCC removed the attachments from someone’s objection on the incinerator planning submissions and was only discovered by chance just before the pre Public Inquiry Meeting. I remember how uncomfortable Nick Palmer looked when she stood up and told the original Planning Inspector. Because of that, I'd recommend everyone check not just their objections are there, but any attachments as well.